OK, we dont know what will happen yet, some SSPX factions clearly want the anti-Rome to recognise them, others within the SSPX continue to resist any reconciliation. So, should I abstain from SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles? How should I advise others?

If SSPX reconciles then what would be the difference between SSPX and Motu mass? Both would be a declared part of the anti-church. If we would attend a reconciled SSPX mass then why not a Motu?

What principles should guide us in this decision? Should I avoid SSPX mass because it would simply be wrong to attend anti-church mass? Or because such mass would pose a danger to the faith of myself and those for whom I am responsible if the SSPX is likely to go easier on anti-Rome doctrine and practice? Or because my attendence would cause confusion and scandal to others and pose a threat to their faith? Should I advise others to abstain from SSPX mass because it would pose a danger to their faith?

Personally I would never attend anti-church mass and I would abstain from SSPX mass if SSPX reconciled. I want no part with the anti-church and I do not believe that God would be pleased or satisfied with me were I to attend their masses. I would be inclined to advise others to abstain.

What do list members think?

Tue May 29, 2012 3:34 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Well, the principles which I think apply are well known. Until somebody can show why one of more of those principles is wrong, I'll not be altering my view.

It isn't our job to save the Church or make martyrs of ourselves. Our job is to save our souls and assist those for whom we have responsibility to save theirs (i.e. our spouse and children). If God wants us to be martyrs, He will arrange it. If He wants us to avoid Holy Mass on some principle, then He will make that principle clear.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 29, 2012 3:55 am

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

In my opinion, we must avoid to assist at the una cum Mass. And the reason is that, indipendently by its validity, this Mass is not pleasing to God because it is offered in communion with a person who is destroying the Church. In the una cum Mass we do not pray "pro" (i.e. in favour of) Benedicto, but with and in submission to him.

This is, about me, hardly compatible not only with the battle against the modernism (Ratzinger is the apex of modernism), but also with the safety of our soul (it means to pray with those who do the evil of the Church).

For a total sedevacantist, then, it would means to pray with heretics. That is not a Catholic behavior.

I do not know if we can assist at this Mass only in totally extraordinary cases. Perhaps, only if it is completely impossible for us to attend at a non una cum Mass and, however, taking the distance from the activity of the Institution (for example SSPX) that is celebrating these Masses.

Cordially

Tue May 29, 2012 8:51 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Do you have an authority for your interpretation of the text of the Te igitur Gabriele?

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 29, 2012 9:20 am

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

John Lane wrote:

Do you have an authority for your interpretation of the text of the Te igitur Gabriele?

Not of course, John. Indeed, my incipit was: in my opinion.About you, the una cum Mass is not offered with and in submission to a person who do the evil for the Church? And, about you, this is not bad?

But whatever can be said about this controverted point of ecclesiastical learning, it is sufficient for us to be able to affirm that the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff in the Mass as well as the prayers said for him in the Sacrifice are considered to be, and are a certain declarative sign, by which the same Pontiff is recognized as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Successor of Saint Peter, and becomes of profession of a mind and will firmly adhering to Catholic unity…

I hope this is authoritative for you, John.

Your comment is:

"Recalling St. Thomas’s eternal principle, “…in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental", we apply it to this teaching of Benedict XIV. The only possible conclusion is that when a priest inserts John Paul II’s name in the Sacred Canon in the mistaken belief that he is the pope, this is “the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.” To call it, on the contrary, schism, is simply to miss the point".

This concern, perhaps, the priest who is "in the mistaken belief that he is the pope", but not the faithful who know the truth, that is that Ratzinger is not Pope.

Cordially

Tue May 29, 2012 1:32 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Of course the naming of the Roman Pontiff is an expression of unity with him, but now you're changing the subject. What you wrote, was that the "una cum" clause is not a prayer for the pope, when it absolutely is, as I have proved. You wrote: "In the una cum Mass we do not pray "pro" (i.e. in favour of) Benedicto, but with and in submission to him."

To your second point, do you grant that the priest's act is a virtuous and fully Catholic one, based on St. Thomas's principle?

The faithful don't express the name of the pope, the priest does. In the present circumstances, nobody who assists at a traditional Mass thinks that everybody agrees that Benedict is pope. Well, maybe at an Indult, but certainly not in an SSPX parish. Too many sedes around.

Now, think about the implications of your position. These masses are good and pleasing to God, except if somebody assists who is convinced that Benedict is not pope. That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Or, are you saying that these masses are evil and not pleasing to God, but He won't punish the ignorant? If so, where was a pleasing mass in 1965?

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 29, 2012 2:31 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Obviously, I have no authority at all. Over time I have come to trust much (if not all) of Mr. Lane's opinions in many such matters. I have, however, been asking the very same question. If the SSPX is "regularized", or whatever term they choose to use, what exactly would be the difference between an SSPX Mass and an FSSP Mass? What would be the difference between an SSPX Mass and an indult Mass authorized by a local bishop.

To date, the only real difference, even without the "regluarization" document, has been the question of the validity of orders. I truly do not know if the orders of the Conciliar church are valid or not. I do know, however, that Father Cekada has made a good case in plain English that the new rites for the consecration of bishops is not a valid Catholic rite. I also know that the Angelus magazine published a refutation of Father Cekada's paper that was clearly above my ability to comprehend. Furthermore, I know that none of the defenses of the new rites have addressed the claims of Father Cekada to my satisfaction and, if what Father Cekada says is actually true, then I cannot understand how the new rites can be valid.

As long as a priest at an SSPX chapel was ordained by the SSPX or conditionally ordained by the SSPX, which, I have been told, has generally been the custom of the United States district until now, I do, at least, have confidence that the person offering the Mass is truly a validly ordained Catholic priest.

However, this certitude on my part has been growing less and less certain in recent months with the appointment of the new District Superior who seems to be completely on board with whatever Bishop Fellay does. Furthermore, if there is a "regularization document" I do not see any possiblity that the Society can require--or even suggest--any Conciliar priest who wishes to assist the Society be conditionally ordained.

If there is absolutely no alternative to the Sacraments, I suppose, for a time at least, it would be permissible for me to attend an SSPX chapel as long as I am certain about the ordination status of the priest, but I do think that certainty would, just as it has for all priests "in full communion (whatever that means) with the Conciliar church, fade.

Obviously, I have no authority at all. Over time I have come to trust much (if not all) of Mr. Lane's opinions in many such matters. I have, however, been asking the very same question. If the SSPX is "regularized", or whatever term they choose to use, what exactly would be the difference between an SSPX Mass and an FSSP Mass? What would be the difference between an SSPX Mass and an indult Mass authorized by a local bishop?

In my opinion (and I believe exactly as you do: that I have no authority in these matters at all), there will eventually be no difference whatever between the SSPX and FSSP Masses or an Indult, but to me, the question revolves around the validity of the orders of the priest far more than any other.

TKGS wrote:

To date, the only real difference, even without the "regularization" document, has been the question of the validity of orders. I truly do not know if the orders of the Conciliar church are valid or not.

I am absolutely convinced that they are not.

TKGS wrote:

I do know, however, that Father Cekada has made a good case in plain English that the new rites for the consecration of bishops is not a valid Catholic rite. Furthermore, I know that none of the defenses of the new rites have addressed the claims of Father Cekada to my satisfaction and, if what Father Cekada says is actually true, then I cannot understand how the new rites can be valid.

I have spent considerable time researching this issue. I have not only Fr. Cekada's papers (there are more than one) on this issue, but also a long paper by Mr. John Daly, and another by someone I think no one other than myself here knows: a Mr. John Peiffer, a long-time member of the SSPX, and a lawyer, who carefully researched this issue on his own.

The conclusion of all three of these people is that the Novus Ordo "ordination" (they no longer call it consecration) of a Bishop is PATENTLY invalid. There is simply no doubt whatever on that score. This conclusion was forced on Mr. Peiffer by his own research and he was most distressed to realize its significance.

This is most significant, and reduces the other question, whether the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination is valid or not, to being completely moot. It has no importance whatever to the issue at hand, and the question can be completely ignored for our purposes.

Of the three mentioned above, Mr. Daly, who, by the way if that is not known by all here, is a Latin Scholar of the first quality, thinks that the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination is invalid. But since, it appears, that only one word, "ut", has been changed in that rite, the other two men are not certain about this issue.

Nonetheless, as I said above, this question is moot anyway in our present circumstance.

Since, if these men, "ordained" as "bishops" using the defective rite of Montini then attempt to ordain a man, even if they used the OLD rite, that man would remain a layman, since these "bishops" do not have the power to ordain anyone.

What this means to me is that IFF the SSPX is "regularized" by "rome", EVENTUALLY, there will be no more valid priests within the SSPX to offer the Mass.

TKGS wrote:

As long as a priest at an SSPX chapel was ordained by the SSPX or conditionally ordained by the SSPX, which, I have been told, has generally been the custom of the United States district until now, I do, at least, have confidence that the person offering the Mass is truly a validly ordained Catholic priest.

Yes.

TKGS wrote:

However, this certitude on my part has been growing less and less certain in recent months with the appointment of the new District Superior who seems to be completely on board with whatever Bishop Fellay does. Furthermore, if there is a "regularization document" I do not see any possibility that the Society can require--or even suggest--any Conciliar priest who wishes to assist the Society be conditionally ordained.

Exactly!

TKGS wrote:

If there is absolutely no alternative to the Sacraments, I suppose, for a time at least, it would be permissible for me to attend an SSPX chapel as long as I am certain about the ordination status of the priest, but I do think that certainty would, just as it has for all priests "in full communion (whatever that means) with the Conciliar church, fade.

Again, in my opinion, you are absolutely correct.

God help us all.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Tue May 29, 2012 4:37 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Ken Gordon wrote:

What this means to me is that IF the SSPX is "regularized" by "rome", EVENTUALLY, there will be no more valid priests within the SSPX to offer the Mass.

And it has always seemed to me that the primary reason Archbishop Lefevbre ordained or consecrated four bishops for the Society was to ensure that there were true bishops to ordain priests.

By the way, although I certainly do not know the details, or even if this is true, our youngest son informed me today that Fellay was a "last minute" choice for consecration as Bishop by Lefebvre, and that Fellay was the particular choice of some Swiss person who was a big donor to the society.

Might anyone know anything about this?

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Tue May 29, 2012 11:12 pm

trent13

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:57 pmPosts: 8

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Quote:

By the way, although I certainly do not know the details, or even if this is true, our youngest son informed me today that Fellay was a "last minute" choice for consecration as Bishop by Lefebvre, and that Fellay was the particular choice of some Swiss person who was a big donor to the society.

Might anyone know anything about this?

The first I heard about this was from Stephen Heiner at his true restoration blog, but then I also read it on Traditio (for what that is worth - I've heard that Traditio is incredibly unreliable as well).

I wouldn't believe it if Traditio told me the sun was shining at high-noon in the middle of the Sahara Desert unless I had seen it myself...

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Wed May 30, 2012 12:20 am

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

John Lane wrote:

Of course the naming of the Roman Pontiff is an expression of unity with him,

Exactly. And this means that those Masses are offered with Ratzinger and not only "pro" Ratzinger.

John Lane wrote:

but now you're changing the subject. What you wrote, was that the "una cum" clause is not a prayer for the pope, when it absolutely is, as I have proved. You wrote: "In the una cum Mass we do not pray "pro" (i.e. in favour of) Benedicto, but with and in submission to him."

I have not changed the subject, as it is evident. I could say that in those Masses we do not pray only "pro" Ratzinger, but also with and in submission to him. What is important is that those Masses are offered in communion with a man who do the evil for the Church. This is confirmed by the words of Benedict XIV. And this is bad, ex se (di per sè), independently from the will of the celebrant.

John Lane wrote:

To your second point, do you grant that the priest's act is a virtuous and fully Catholic one, based on St. Thomas's principle?

Abolutely not, because we must consider the act objectively. And not the intention of the celebrant. About me, you are using wrong the teaching of St. Thomas. If a person says a blasphemy he gives scandal independently from his will.

John Lane wrote:

The faithful don't express the name of the pope, the priest does.

If you hear a blaspfhemy, are you not scandalized (independently from the will of the person who says it)? To attend at these Masses without a valid reason means to approve them.

John Lane wrote:

In the present circumstances, nobody who assists at a traditional Mass thinks that everybody agrees that Benedict is pope. Well, maybe at an Indult, but certainly not in an SSPX parish. Too many sedes around.

This argument confirms what I say. It is necessary to presume that the Mass is celebrated non una cum for does not to be scandalized.

John Lane wrote:

Now, think about the implications of your position. These masses are good and pleasing to God, except if somebody assists who is convinced that Benedict is not pope. That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Or, are you saying that these masses are evil and not pleasing to God, but He won't punish the ignorant? If so, where was a pleasing mass in 1965?

This is not my position. For me, a Mass una cum is not pleasing to God. If the priest is in good faith (that is he ignores that Ratzinger is not Pope) he does not sin (as the faithful in good faith which attend this Mass). If the priest and the faithful know that Ratzinger is not Pope, they do sin. In this last case there is an exception for the faithful for which it is impossible (for geographical reasons, so to speak) attend at a non una cum Mass. They can attend at a (valid) Mass una cum, but not sharing the theological position of the celebrant (this because the duty of every Catholic is to witness fully the Faith).

Cordially

Wed May 30, 2012 10:47 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Dear Gabriele,

You didn't answer my questions regarding the implications of your position, except to say that you disagree, but I don't mind. I understand, yours is the position of Guerard des Lauriers, and has been popularised (as much as it can be) in the English-speaking world by Bishop Sanborn.

We've covered all this ground and more in several threads which are in their own forum section, here: viewforum.php?f=12

Please have a good read through and if you find something to which you object that has not been answered, feel free to raise it.

I don't have any choice open to me other than SSPX, so you can relax about my soul, even on your own principles.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed May 30, 2012 12:04 pm

Gandolfo 1958

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 amPosts: 48

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

John Lane wrote:

Well, the principles which I think apply are well known. Until somebody can show why one of more of those principles is wrong, I'll not be altering my view.

It isn't our job to save the Church or make martyrs of ourselves. Our job is to save our souls and assist those for whom we have responsibility to save theirs (i.e. our spouse and children). If God wants us to be martyrs, He will arrange it. If He wants us to avoid Holy Mass on some principle, then He will make that principle clear.

John, I respect your considered opinion. Could you elaborate for me as I attempt to unearth some of the principles? Is it licit for a sedevacantist to attend indult mass in your opinion? Would it be permissible to attend the novus ordo if the new translation is valid? What about Eastern schismatic or Old Catholic mass or an Anglican mass served by an ex-RC priest? Does a sedevacantist find all of these options equally valid if there is no sede mass to be found or might it be better to prefer an Orthodox or High Anglican mass to a novus ordo? At what point would a sedevacantist find indult or novus ordo mass unacceptable for want of a declaration?

On the more general point: do you consider the novus ordo church to be the Catholic church? Are Ratzinger and his hierarchy Catholics? Are Benedict priests Catholics? Are Benedict parishes Catholic parishes and is their mass Catholic mass, validity aside (for some Benedict priests are valid.)

If I may interject here: I cannot let this go by without some comment, and I hope you will not think that I am being out-of-place or other than as charitable about this entire subject as I possibly can be.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

Is it licit for a sedevacantist to attend indult mass in your opinion?

I would rephrase this question: "Is it licit for a CATHOLIC to attend an indult mass?" I would say, "No".

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

Would it be permissible to attend the novus ordo if the new translation is valid?

Again, I would say, "No". You see, it is not ONLY the "new translation" or even the "old translation" that makes the Novus Ordo invalid, but many other factors are involved in addition to that. To make this clearer to you, I would suggest you get any or all of the following books and read them: "Work of Human Hands" by Fr. Anthony Cekada, "The Problems with the New Mass" by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, "The Robber Church" by Patrick Henry Omlor. There are others, but these will give you an excellent and clear understanding of the Novus Ordo vs the True Mass.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

What about Eastern schismatic

No.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

or Old Catholic mass

No.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

or an Anglican mass served by an ex-RC priest?

Absolutely not.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

Does a sedevacantist find all of these options equally valid if there is no sede mass to be found or might it be better to prefer an Orthodox or High Anglican mass to a novus ordo?

No. They are all the same: equally devastating to your Faith and completely devoid of grace, and for me it would most certainly be a mortal sin to do so.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

At what point would a sedevacantist find indult or novus ordo mass unacceptable for want of a declaration?

I do not understand your question: please clarify.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

On the more general point: do you consider the novus ordo church to be the Catholic church?

Absolutely not.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

Are Ratzinger and his hierarchy Catholics?

This question, since it contains two different thoughts, is somewhat more complex to answer: first of all, Ratzinger has absolutely proven himself to be the worst sort of modernist heretic I have ever even read about. He cannot possibly be a Catholic in any sense of the term.

As far as his hierarchy is concerned, that determination would have to be arrived at on a case-by-case basis. It is POSSIBLE that SOME at least of "his" hierarchy remain Catholic since they may possibly be mistaken and not malicious. However, we really have no way to determine that, and thus we should avoid ALL of them.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

Are Benedict's priests Catholics?

Again, this is difficult to answer in a simple manner: First of all, every single one of Benedict's priests who have been "ordained" since 1969 are, in my very carefully considered opinion, completely invalid and are no more than laymen. As to whether or not such men are or remain Catholics, that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It is certainly POSSIBLE, but in my opinion, very unlikely. Also, you must realize that we, lay people, cannot make the determination of their possible Catholicity: this would require a judgement from a valid Church with proper authority. We do not have that.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

Are Benedict parishes Catholic parishes

No.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

and is their mass Catholic mass,

Absolutely not.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:

validity aside (for some Benedict priests are valid.)

The only Novus Ordo priests whose orders are valid are those who were ordained by a valid bishop before 1969. Otherwise, they are ALL invalid.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 pm

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

John Lane wrote:

Dear Gabriele,

You didn't answer my questions regarding the implications of your position, except to say that you disagree, but I don't mind.

Dear John, you have given me a position that I have not. Starting from this position, you have asked to me some questions. So I have described my position more clearly. Now that you know my position you can make to me all questions you want.

John Lane wrote:

I understand, yours is the position of Guerard des Lauriers, and has been popularised (as much as it can be) in the English-speaking world by Bishop Sanborn.

As far as I know, Fr. Guérard had a different opinion than Bp. Sanborn about the attendance at the una cum Mass. Fr. Guérard was "more permissive" (so to speak) than Bp. Sanborn. He said that the una cum Mass is bad ex se but also that in extraordinary cases some faithful can attend at these Masses without sin. So he said (my translation): "Assistance to the "una cum Mass" may therefore be object to a "case of conscience". Each case is a case where it should be resolved ultimately by the consciousness of the person, but not without the advice and directives communicated by a priest "not una cum"."

Bp. Sanborn is "less permissive" (so to speak). Here an example of what he says:"32. But what if you have no other Mass to go to?It would not change the immorality of the una cum Mass. Our inconvenience does not make good what is objectively evil. For example, Catholics in Greece, even before Vatican II, had great difficulty in finding a true Catholic Mass offered in union with the pope, but very easily found schismatic Masses, which did not differ in any way from the Catholic Mass, except in that they were offered in union with the schismatics, and not in union with the true pope. Yet they could not attend these schismatic Masses.If you have only an una cum Mass to go to, it would be better to stay home and say your Rosary."(Bp. Sanborn, Questions & Answers Vatican II, the Pope and SSPX, http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/a ... evPDF2.pdf).

I share the opinion of Fr. Guérard. But note the expression of Bp. Sanborn: "it would be better to stay home".

Please have a good read through and if you find something to which you object that has not been answered, feel free to raise it.

In this thread, I wanted only to express my humble opinion. And do not address the problem in a systematic way.

John Lane wrote:

I don't have any choice open to me other than SSPX, so you can relax about my soul, even on your own principles.

Dear John, if I had no choice as you, probably I would act like you, but I would not say that the una cum Mass is objectively good and licit. I would say that this (valid) Mass is objectively bad and illicit but because of an extraordinary and valid reason I attend at her (not sharing the theological position of the celebrant).

Cordially

Thu May 31, 2012 1:47 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Gandolfo,

I've written an entire article on this question, and other articles addressing all of your other questions. This forum is not like any other. It is not for banter, for arguing for the fun of it, for a soapbox for people to express their views, and it is not a free answering service for people who don't really want answers, because if they did, they'd read the material already produced over many years with great effort and sacrifice.

So, if you have questions, please read extensively in the obvious places. If, after reading extensively, you think something is obscure, please do raise it and it may well be that you've noticed something others haven't, and that will be a genuine contribution to everybody's intellectual formation.

Gabriele,

I think that the mass of a priest who thinks Benedict is pope is a good and holy thing, on the principle that in human acts, it is what is intended that is essential. I have often used the example of a man who falls off a cliff. Is he a material suicide? You see the problem with loose thinking about this.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu May 31, 2012 2:56 am

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Ken Gordon wrote:

This is not true: "...after the second or third warning, such an one, avoid." We are REQUIRED as Catholics to recognize heresy and "avoid" heretics. How can we "avoid" an heretic if we have not recognized him and heresy as such?

And what is the use of Canon 188 then? Why was it even included in Canon Law if what you say is true?

So, was the draper who instantly, in Mass, during the sermon, accused Nestorius of heresy and walked out of the Church wrong? NO! Emphatically NO! He was praised by all and his name, or at least his action, is recognized even today.

1. I know that Ratzinger is not Pope and this is sufficient for not mention Benedict XVI in the "Te Igitur". The reason is that in that place must be mentioned the Pope.2. I know that the naming of the Pope in the "Te Igitur" is an expression of unity with him. By consequence, the naming of a person who does the evil for the Church in the "Te Igitur" is objectively a sacrilegious behavior.

Ken Gordon wrote:

We are REQUIRED as Catholics to know the truth, and we are thereby REQUIRED to know what is opposed to truth and to recognize it as such.

I will repeat: all you have to do is to read Ratzo's recent, published writings and compare them with what you KNOW to be the Catholic Church's teachings on various subjects to recognize instantly that he is an heretic. To NOT do so is tantamount to agreeing with him that it doesn't matter. By doing so, you are an enemy of Christ and His Church.

I do not find heresies but errors. The heresy on religiuos freedom is an heresy proposed by the "magisterium" of the Second Vatican Council: this fact might induce Fr. Ratzinger to think that if he approves this doctrine on religious freedom he does not go against the Magisterium of the Church.For to say that Ratzinger is a heretic, someone should find in his works a heresy, different from the heresies taught by the "magisterium" of the "conciliar church". And if it were possible to find only a heresy professed by Ratzinger in a work of him posterior in respect to his election to the Papacy, this would mean that St. Bellarmine teaching (a Pope can never become a heretic) is wrong.

Ken Gordon wrote:

To me, the thinking you exhibit by your statement above is exactly equivalent to that of any Novus Ordo protestant.

I do not know why, really.

Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:34 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Gabriele,

What is the sin which is "objectively" committed by the priest? What is its species? Can you actually say?

And once we have this sorted, what species of sin is committed by a man who assists at Holy Mass in which the priest mistakenly believes that Benedict is pope?

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:06 am

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Gabriele wrote:

1. I know that Ratzinger is not Pope and this is sufficient for not mention Benedict XVI in the "Te Igitur". The reason is that in that place must be mentioned the Pope.

This is sufficient for you not to mention Benedict XVI, which you are not. The priest is following his conscience and naming the man he believes is pope. The question of Benedict's legitimacy is still undecided by authority and I see no real difficulty here.

Gabriele wrote:

2. I know that the naming of the Pope in the "Te Igitur" is an expression of unity with him. By consequence, the naming of a person who does the evil for the Church in the "Te Igitur" is objectively a sacrilegious behavior.

The priest is expressing unity with the pope. He mentions the pope. The priest who is sedevacantist does not mention the pope because he believes there is no pope. Again, this is undecided by authority and both men are following their conscience. They have a decision to make, which is quite simple.

Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:16 am

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

John Lane wrote:

Gabriele,

What is the sin which is "objectively" committed by the priest? What is its species? Can you actually say?

The sin of schism and the sin of scandal.

John Lane wrote:

And once we have this sorted, what species of sin is committed by a man who assists at Holy Mass in which the priest mistakenly believes that Benedict is pope?

Always "objectively", the sin of schism and the sin of scandal.

Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:07 pm

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Robert Bastaja wrote:

Gabriele wrote:

1. I know that Ratzinger is not Pope and this is sufficient for not mention Benedict XVI in the "Te Igitur". The reason is that in that place must be mentioned the Pope.

This is sufficient for you not to mention Benedict XVI, which you are not. The priest is following his conscience and naming the man he believes is pope. The question of Benedict's legitimacy is still undecided by authority and I see no real difficulty here.

Gabriele wrote:

2. I know that the naming of the Pope in the "Te Igitur" is an expression of unity with him. By consequence, the naming of a person who does the evil for the Church in the "Te Igitur" is objectively a sacrilegious behavior.

The priest is expressing unity with the pope. He mentions the pope. The priest who is sedevacantist does not mention the pope because he believes there is no pope. Again, this is undecided by authority and both men are following their conscience. They have a decision to make, which is quite simple.

The statement for which Ratzinger has not Papal Authority is "thetical" and not "hypothetical".This statement is based on a truth of faith: it is impossible that a Pope teaches the Error.Once demonstrated that Ratzinger teaches the Error, the conclusion ("Ratzinger has not Papal Authority") has the character of certitude. It is not a mere opinion. It is not something questionable. And, to achieve this certainty, it is not necessary the intervention of authority.To put in discussion this certainty, we must:a) or demonstrate that Ratzinger did not teach the Error with infallible acts (as they try to do the Lefebvrists);b) or demonstrate that Ratzinger did not teach any Error (as they try to do the Conservative Modernists).

Gabriele: NONE of us presently living (at least as far as we know) has either the competence (in Canon Law) nor the authority to declare what you have stated above to be dogma, doctrine, or law.

It is your opinion, and nothing more.

I will also add, again, that the reasons I and others here don't quote chapter and verse to you of Ratzo's heresies include the fact of the above: I have neither competence nor authority to bind anyone, and secondly, quoting what I sincerely believe to be one of his heresies simply gives you further reason to argue. If you were to read the writings and articles we have presented to you yourself, and had come to your own conclusions on these matters, it is possible you would convince yourself and there would be no further need of argument.

I will repeat again: don't ask us to do your work for you: do it yourself.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:00 pm

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Ken Gordon wrote:

Gabriele: NONE of us presently living (at least as far as we know) has either the competence (in Canon Law) nor the authority to declare what you have stated above to be dogma, doctrine, or law.

It is your opinion, and nothing more.

In fact, I have not said this. What I have said above (Ratzinger has not Papal authority) is not a dogma, a catholic doctrine nor a law. It is a "thesis". A thesis is a proposition which is affirmed as true until proof to the contrary.The Cassiciacum Thesis does not base herself on Canon Law (moreover the Pope is above of the Canon Law), but 1) on a truth of faith (the Pope can not profess the Error in his Papal Magisterium) combined with 2) the observation that Ratzinger professes the Error in his "papal magisterium".This Thesis is not a dogma. A man can be Catholic without to be a person which share this Thesis. But if a person knows this truth of faith (the Pope can not profess the Error in his Papal Magisterium), and he knows also that Benedict XVI professes the Error in his "papal magisterium" this person must believe that Benedict XVI has not Papal Authority. He can not refuse, because the truth always binds.

Ken Gordon wrote:

I will also add, again, that the reasons I and others here don't quote chapter and verse to you of Ratzo's heresies include the fact of the above: I have neither competence nor authority to bind anyone, and secondly, quoting what I sincerely believe to be one of his heresies simply gives you further reason to argue. If you were to read the writings and articles we have presented to you yourself, and had come to your own conclusions on these matters, it is possible you would convince yourself and there would be no further need of argument.

I will repeat again: don't ask us to do your work for you: do it yourself.

You have not understood. I have not asked you to quote a heresy of Ratzinger professed before his election for have a proof usefull to demonstrate my thesis. I can already demonstrate that Ratzinger has not Papal authority (here it takes only an error in the "papal magisterium" of Ratzinger). I have asked you to quote a heresy of Ratzinger professed before his election for verify the correctness of the thesis of this forum, that is Ratzinger was a heretic before his election and by consequence he is not Pope nor "formaliter" nor "materialiter".

Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:22 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Gabriele wrote:

John Lane wrote:

Gabriele,

What is the sin which is "objectively" committed by the priest? What is its species? Can you actually say?

The sin of schism and the sin of scandal.

John Lane wrote:

And once we have this sorted, what species of sin is committed by a man who assists at Holy Mass in which the priest mistakenly believes that Benedict is pope?

If so, how can you say that something which does not meet the specification of the sin, is "objectively" that sin?

I’ve read, John.

To say that the priest who celebrates "una cum" objectively commits the sin of schism is not to say that the priest sins. It means that if he had full awareness of what he was doing he would have sinned. I give you an example. If I say a blasphemy, but I'm in a state of inability to understand and to will, I do not commit sin. But what I did is objectively an evil. It is not an evil "subjectively", but "objectively".

So, you're right to say that the priest who celebrates "una cum" does not commit any sin, but you're wrong to say that "objectively" he does not the evil.

You might say that evil resides in the will. Instead, evil exists in itself, if it is put in place, and we can put it in place voluntarily or unvoluntarily. For example: to subtract, without reason, to a man what is in his property is an evil in itself (independently by the will of the person who operate the subtraction).

It seems to me that your concept of evil is a bit '"voluntaristic". For you, there is no evil without the will to do evil. Instead, it is correct to say that evil is beyond the will of who does it. It exists “objectively”, when it is committed (example: stealing is bad in itself, and for this reason God has forbidden to do it). But when we do it voluntarily we commit a sin.

Cordially

Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:10 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Gabriele wrote:

To say that the priest who celebrates "una cum" objectively commits the sin of schism is not to say that the priest sins.

Yes, of course, the term "objectively" we both understand in the same way.

Gabriele wrote:

It means that if he had full awareness of what he was doing he would have sinned. I give you an example. If I say a blasphemy, but I'm in a state of inability to understand and to will, I do not commit sin. But what I did is objectively an evil. It is not an evil "subjectively", but "objectively".

Agreed.

Gabriele wrote:

So, you're right to say that the priest who celebrates "una cum" does not commit any sin, but you're wrong to say that "objectively" he does not the evil.

This doesn't follow, because the case is different.

Why is blasphemy objectively a sin even if done without sinful will? Because the object is evil. Why is the object evil? Because it violates divine law. So the species of the act is a violation of divine law.

Now, what is the species of the act of the priest who names Benedict as pope in the canon? You cannot say it violates divine law, because there is no divine law about naming Benedict in the canon. So the object is not evil, and therefore there is no "objective" sin.

Another example. Is every priest who remains in his diocese, under the authority of his bishop, after the bishop shows himself to be a heretic, committing objectively a sin against the divine law that all must avoid heretics? No, because the divine law isn't specifically about his bishop; it isn't about this particular heretic, it is a general law to be applied in the concrete according to the judgement of each man.

So the "object" is not necessarily evil. And unless the object is evil, we cannot talk about "objective sin".

Now, if a man were to harbour a heretic because he sympathised with his heresies, then that would be a different case. Why? Because then the object would be evil. And the law would treat this objectively as a crime, and the culprit would be suspect of heresy. But does a hotelier who harbours a heretic, without knowing what he is, really "harbour a heretic"? Is that an accurate description of what he does? No, he rents a room for the night to a customer. The act isn't evil, even objectively.

Now these cases are quite different from blasphemy, or sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament, or manslaughter, or theft, where the object is in itself evil, either moral or physical. In such cases the sin can be said to exist objectively, for the obvious reason.

Gabriele wrote:

You might say that evil resides in the will. Instead, evil exists in itself, if it is put in place, and we can put it in place voluntarily or unvoluntarily. For example: to subtract, without reason, to a man what is in his property is an evil in itself (independently by the will of the person who operate the subtraction).

It seems to me that your concept of evil is a bit '"voluntaristic". For you, there is no evil without the will to do evil. Instead, it is correct to say that evil is beyond the will of who does it. It exists “objectively”, when it is committed (example: stealing is bad in itself, and for this reason God has forbidden to do it). But when we do it voluntarily we commit a sin.

Well, evil is a privation of a due good. The evil of blasphemy indeed has objective existence even if done without malice, because God is denied due honour. What is the evil of the hotelier renting a room to the heretic? What is the evil in the priest naming Benedict in the canon as pope? There is no objective evil there, only a mistake of fact.

Common sense tells us that blasphemy and the act of a priest naming Benedict in the canon because he is thought to be pope are not in the same category. The difference, on the face of it, is so radically different that only by a sophistical process could they be made to appear similar. It might be true that most men cannot explain in detail what that difference is, but they know that it does exist.

This is why I have always said that the anti-una-cum obsession strikes me as a kind of superstition, investing an innocent mistake with some kind of disproportionate power or character.

Of course, once the Church issues a judgement about a particular person, the whole situation changes radically. To associate with a heretic who has been condemned by the Church would be objectively to sin, and if this were done consciously, there would be subjective sin also.

And I say, if this isn't true, then what difference to the case does the action of the Church make?

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:20 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Bishop Sanborn on his own sedeplenism from 1980-83. From his article, Nomen Religioni Obnoxium

Quote:

And while we are on the subject, I should bring up something which has often been thrown up to me by critics: “You, Fr. Sanborn, were once una cum!” Yes, it is true, I was. Let me explain. I began adhering to the vacancy of the Apostolic See back in 1973 at Ecône, at a time when a third of the seminarians openly thought similarly. In 1979 Archbishop Lefebvre began his una cum campaign and concomitant persecution. I went to see him in Switzerland in January of 1980 for an entirely different matter, at which time he insisted that I become una cum. I reluctantly accepted to do so because, at the time, I labored under the notion that the vacancy of the Apostolic See was a matter of opinion, and that a probable argument could be made for both sides. I thought, erroneously, that the una cum or sede plena position was a legitimate theological opinion. I thus accepted to be una cum because of the principle that one can act on a probable opinion even though one might be convinced that the opposite opinion is more probable. (17) Even in my sede plena days, however, I always felt in my heart that the sede vacante position made much more sense. So I was una cum in all good though uncomfortable conscience from 1980 to 1983.

Footnote 17) Before the Thomists have a hemorrhage, let me point out quickly that one of the Princeps Thomistarum of this century, Hugon, says that it is legitimate to do such a thing. "Non repugnat ut intellectus adhæreat uni opinioni, dum alteram existimat probabiliorem." Cursus Philosophiæ Thomisticæ, Logica Maior, Tract. III., q. 1.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:21 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Gabriele,

Here's the then-Father Sanborn missing this distinction I've explained above, and therefore equating an evil object with a good object (also from his article, Nomen Religioni Obnoxium):

Quote:

Objection I. The priest who is una cum is in good conscience, and does not want to be part of anything which is non-catholic. Therefore he is not formally schismatic. Therefore his Mass is not schismatic.

Answer. That most priests who are una cum are in good conscience, I admit. That they are therefore not formally schismatic, I admit. That therefore their Masses are not schismatic, I deny. The Mass is an ecclesial act, and its “ecclesiality,” its very catholicity, does not depend on the formality or materiality of the schism of the priest. The priest's good or bad conscience does not in any way affect the object of the act of the una cum statement, which is both to declare communion with John Paul II as pope, and to place the Mass under the auspices of something other than the Roman Catholic Church.

By analogy, a priest may, through inadvertence, throw away a consecrated host into the sacristy trash can. Others around him who know that the host is consecrated cannot consent to or participate in the priest's action, even though the priest did it in good conscience. Everyone knows that the objective morality of an act does not flow from the intention of the agent but from the object itself.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:29 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

And one more example from the same article which confirms the law (but then discards it):

Quote:

Objection II. Anyone who has not been officially excommunicated (by declaratory or condemnatory sentence) may still be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass. But John Paul II has never been officially excommunicated. Therefore he may still be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass.

Answer. Anyone who has not been officially excommunicated (by declaratory or condemnatory sentence) may still be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass, I distinguish, in normal times, I admit, in times when the Apostolic See and apparently all episcopal sees are possessed by heretics, I deny.

As I said earlier, heresy becomes the law when heretics gain positions of “authority.” Catholics in such a case cannot permit the Church to become an absolute anarchy and hold harmless the wholesale abandonment of the Faith throughout the world. By analogy, the New Mass has never been officially condemned by the Church. Yet Catholics by the instinct of their faith uncompromisingly reject it. Thus one could just as easily say, “The Church has never officially condemned the New Mass, so therefore we are free to accept it.” No, the firmness of Catholics against the New Mass, the new sacraments, the new doctrines of Vatican II, in short the whole new religion, must ecclesiologically translate into a rejection of the authority of the “Popes” who promulgated it. If the new religion is defective, it cannot be from the Catholic Church. If it cannot be from the Catholic Church, then the Conciliar “Popes” cannot be said to have the authority of the Church. Otherwise you end up with a defectible and defected Catholic Church.

While it is true, therefore, that John Paul II has not been officially condemned, the situation in the Church is such that Catholics must bear witness to the heresy of the new religion, and therefore of his lack of authority. If Catholics let these Conciliar “Popes” pass as true Catholic Popes, then historically the Catholic Church will be said to have defected. Hence it is absolutely necessary that Catholics treat them as non-popes.

So much for the law.

Let's see how he overturns it: "As I said earlier, heresy becomes the law when heretics gain positions of “authority.” Catholics in such a case cannot permit the Church to become an absolute anarchy and hold harmless the wholesale abandonment of the Faith throughout the world."

Straw man. Traditional Catholics who think that Benedict is somehow pope (for reasons such as that if he isn't, then there's no hierarchy, and that's impossible), do not "hold harmless the wholesale abandonment of the Faith throughout the world." They certainly see the harm of heresy, and the wreckage it caused in the Church.

Then another false comparison: "By analogy, the New Mass has never been officially condemned by the Church. Yet Catholics by the instinct of their faith uncompromisingly reject it. Thus one could just as easily say, 'The Church has never officially condemned the New Mass, so therefore we are free to accept it.'"

The status of a person, and whether or not he truly holds an office he is commonly thought to hold, are entirely different questions from a point of doctrine compared with an error. This is obvious. It is only emphasised by the fact that the Church herself has tolerated the opinions of those of her authorised theologians who held that a heretic would remain pope until and unless deposed.

And, in case anybody is in doubt about the question of whether there is an actual Catholic hierarchy in existence, according to the writer of this article, consider this from earlier in the same piece:

Quote:

If, therefore, John Paul II is the Pope, then the Church of which he is the head is the Roman Catholic Church, and the hierarchy with which he is in communion is the Catholic hierarchy. It would then follow that their ordinary magisterium (e.g., Vatican II) is infallible, their rites and sacraments are both valid and Catholic and therefore entirely acceptable, and that their general laws (e.g., 1983 Code) do not prescribe anything sinful. For where the Church is, there is eternal life, and the Catholic would need not trouble his conscience about the doctrines, rites, sacraments and practices of the Novus Ordo Church.

I would sooner accept death than admit these things about the John Paul II church.

So, where was the true hierarchy if it was not to be found amongst those who expressed verbal communion with John Paul II?

You know I agree with that, but are you postulating that they do not profess verbal communion with Benedict?

Yes. Nor communion in any way with VCII.

Perhaps I should explain a little: my conclusion on this last comes from reasons gleaned from many different sources.

As an example, someone once asked Mao Tse Tung why he would periodically appear to relent in his opposition to opposition. He stated something like, "I let the flowers of freedom grow until they are very obvious, then I mow them down."

I am also familiar enough with the history of religious persecution over the centuries to know that some of those "flowers" do not stick there heads above ground, no matter how "safe" things look: such as these are very serious students of history, so to speak, and are not about to take any chances.

And there are many examples of such things occurring, not only in the religious realm: i.e., significant people keeping their heads down until they are absolutely certain that the situation has been normalized.

For instance, some Japanese soldiers were still hiding out on one or more of the islands in the Pacific and were not flushed out until the 1960s, as I remember it.

All of the similar situations I have learned about over the years, seem to point to the likelihood that some, probably very few, but enough, of the persecuted Catholic hierarchy which existed in countries which were literally deadly to our Faith and its people, were most suspicious of what took place at VCII, having seen similarities between what was taking place at VCII, and what took place in their own countries, and were NOT be fooled by the changes in the Vatican, and who therefore did NOT stick their heads above ground, and are still there, waiting.

Lastly, there is Our Lord's promise that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church.

I might add that we have been told by a Ukrainian diplomat, who spent 14 years in the Gulag, and whose wife died there, that in 1958, the prisoners had heard, while yet in prison, that there had been a very singular irregularity in the 1958 conclave and an imposter had been elected. They knew no names, but did know of the incident. Some of their jailers were bragging about it.

I also remember being told by someone who really knew, I cannot now remember exactly who, when JPII was "elected", that Karol Wojtyla was if not a Communist himself, he was at least under the control of the Communists since he was able to freely move about Europe while real Catholics, even other priests and members of the hierarchy, were absolutely forbidden to leave Poland.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:03 am

Gabriele

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pmPosts: 249

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

John Lane wrote:

Gabriele wrote:

So, you're right to say that the priest who celebrates "una cum" does not commit any sin, but you're wrong to say that "objectively" he does not the evil.

This doesn't follow, because the case is different.

Why is blasphemy objectively a sin even if done without sinful will? Because the object is evil. Why is the object evil? Because it violates divine law. So the species of the act is a violation of divine law.

It is the contrary. In this case, the object is evil by itself and for this reason God has forbidden it.Instead, for you, blasphemy is nor good nor evil for itself. It is evil because God has forbidden it. This is the "voluntaristic" philosophy. For the "realistic" philosophy (that of St. Thomas), blasphemy is evil by itself and for this reason God has forbidden it.

John Lane wrote:

Now, what is the species of the act of the priest who names Benedict as pope in the canon? You cannot say it violates divine law, because there is no divine law about naming Benedict in the canon. So the object is not evil, and therefore there is no "objective" sin.

The evil, in naming Benedict at the "Te igitur", resides in the fact that the priest expresses his communion (objectively, for the nature of that pray, and not necessarily subjectively) with a person who is not the Pope. This is materially an act of schism.

John Lane wrote:

Another example. Is every priest who remains in his diocese, under the authority of his bishop, after the bishop shows himself to be a heretic, committing objectively a sin against the divine law that all must avoid heretics? No, because the divine law isn't specifically about his bishop; it isn't about this particular heretic, it is a general law to be applied in the concrete according to the judgement of each man.

It is necessarily to distinguish the "ontological" plane from the "legal" plane. In this case, until to a declaratory sentence upon that specific bishop, the priest is not legally obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to avoid this bishop. But if he knows that the bishop is a heretic the priest must to avoid him.

John Lane wrote:

So the "object" is not necessarily evil. And unless the object is evil, we cannot talk about "objective sin".

Dear John, of course: the “object” is not necessarily evil (for example, eating meat on Friday is not evil by itself, it is evil because the Holy Church has commanded it). When the object is evil by itself we must distinguish between the plane of Being and the plane of Law.

John Lane wrote:

This is why I have always said that the anti-una-cum obsession strikes me as a kind of superstition, investing an innocent mistake with some kind of disproportionate power or character.

This obsession does not concern those which follow the Cassiciacum Thesis, it seems to me. As I have show you, Fr. Guérard admitted, for valid reasons, to attend the “una cum Mass”. And Bp. Sanborn says only that it is better to stay at home.On the contrary, I don’t understand why people which consider Ratzinger a heretic can say that the “una cum Mass” is the same thing of a “non-una cum Mass”.

John Lane wrote:

Of course, once the Church issues a judgement about a particular person, the whole situation changes radically. To associate with a heretic who has been condemned by the Church would be objectively to sin, and if this were done consciously, there would be subjective sin also.

And I say, if this isn't true, then what difference to the case does the action of the Church make?

This distinction between the time before the judgement of the Authority and the time after this judgment is very considerable, John. But not in order to the sin, but in order to the status of the person interested by the judgment. For example, we know that, by divine law, the heresy is incompatible with the office of the Pope. But we don’t know how should this principle of divine law be treated in positive law. Are there some exceptions for which a heretic can continue to be Pope? Yes, there are. For the Catholic authors, there is at least the exception of the occult heretic. This man is really (on the plane of the Being) a heretic, but on the plane of the Law he is Pope.Now, can we say the same thing for the public heretic not again declared heretic by a sentence of the Church? I do this question to myself too.

Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:00 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Should sedes avoid SSPX mass if SSPX reconciles?

Dear Gabriele,

Gabriele wrote:

It is the contrary. In this case, the object is evil by itself and for this reason God has forbidden it.Instead, for you, blasphemy is nor good nor evil for itself. It is evil because God has forbidden it. This is the "voluntaristic" philosophy. For the "realistic" philosophy (that of St. Thomas), blasphemy is evil by itself and for this reason God has forbidden it.

Well I am not going to argue about semantics. The divine law in this case is the nature of God Himself, I agree, and this is then laid upon men by divine-positive law also.

Whichever aspect you consider, the divine nature in Itself, or the communication of it to man by positive law, the reality is that blasphemy is objectively evil.

The point is there is no divine law that Benedict should not be named in the canon of the mass, therefore the object of the act is not evil. You can cover this over by suppressing the reasoning process by which you get from the divine law itself to the concrete case of Benedict, but that doesn't change the essential reality than there is no divine law specifically about this person. If there was, the reasoning process would not be required in order to bridge the gap. So until the Church judges, when there will be an ecclesiastical law applying the divine law to this individual, no law exists. The object is not evil. Therefore there is no objective evil, or objective sin.

What is the priest doing? He is obeying the rubrics which require him to include the name of the Roman Pontiff. That is what he does, as far as he knows. Anything else, as St. Thomas teaches, is "accidental". The essence of the act is good.

The case adduced by John Daly, of St. Hypathius and his bishop, Eulalius, is illustrative of this principle. "This Bythinian monk [St. Hypathius] insisted on omitting the name of the heretic Nestorius from the diptychs from the moment when he began to preach his heresy, denying the unity of person in Our Divine Lord. His ordinary, Eulalius, while refusing the heresy of Nestorius, rebuked the holy monk Hypathius for withdrawing from communion with their Nestorius, who was their patriarch, before the judgment of a council. Hypathius replied: "...I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass because a heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you will with me, I am ready to suffer anything, and nothing will make me change my behaviour." (Petits Bollandistes, 17th June)

Did St. Hypathius cut off communion with his bishop, Eulalius? No. Would he have refused to assist at his mass? Well, if you say that he would have, you'd be guessing, because history records no such principle.

After the horrors of the Great Western Schism, St. Martin V issued Ad evitanda scandala, specifically to ensure that in future ipso facto excommunications would not be given as a reason to refuse communion.

Quote:

To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ's faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place. Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary, save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defence. For we will abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical sanctions, even though he be not denounced. (Fontes I, 45.)

This encompasses precisely the point I am making.

I have heard the objection that Benedict is a heretic, whereas the GWS "popes" were not. But that's really only a way of suppressing the evil of schism. Schism is no less evil than heresy, and that's what you would have to admit was "objectively" or "materially" involved in that case.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum